September 23, 2026 (27) ARDR WPA 27186 of 2026 Amina Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Robiul Islam, Adv. Sk. Hayed Hossain, Adv. Masooq Rahman, Adv. Sumitra Das, …for the petitioner. Adv. Amarendra Chakraborty, Adv. Manisha Paswan, …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner who is a member of 10 Ghoramara Gram Panchayat has assailed the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 16th September, 2026 fixing the date of election of the Upa Pradhan on 24th September, 2026 on the ground that the notice was not served upon the petitioner before clear seven days of the date of the meeting. Though the notice was issued on 16th September, 2026, it was served upon the petitioner only on 19th September, 2026. It is not in dispute that the notice fixing the date of election of the Upa Pradhan was served upon the petitioner on 19th September, 2026. The meeting is fixed tomorrow, i.e. 24th September, 2026. At this juncture, this Court is inclined to place reliance on the authority in Union of India & ors. vs. A. K. Pandey reported in 2009 AIR (SCW) 6354 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the effect of violation of a procedural provision. The Hon’ble Court has held that procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity 2 to the delinquent officer/employee. The violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under “no notice”, “no opportunity” and “no hearing” categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent in defending himself properly and effectively. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin and others vs. Sita Ram Agarwal reported in 2003 AIR (SC) 1543, it is well settled principle that if an act is required to be performed by a private person within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time frame, the same will be held to be directory unless the consequences therefor are specified. The two considerations for regarding a provision as directory, as laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the authority in M/s. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. and others vs. The State of Haryana reported in (1979) 2 SCC 196, are as hereunder: (I) Absence of any provision for the contingency of a particular provision not been complied with or followed; and (II) Serious general inconvenience and prejudice that would result to the general public if the act of the Government or an instrumentality is declared invalid for non compliance with a particular provision. 3 Herein, no penal provision is stipulated in the Act for non compliance of the time frame stated in Rule 6(1) of The West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975. The Prescribed Authority being a public functionary performing a public act, the time frame can be held to be directory and not mandatory. The petitioner was aware of the meeting on 19th September, 2026 and no prejudice has been caused to her for non compliance with the provisions laid down under Rule 6(1). In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the date of meeting is fixed on 24th September, 2026, the Officer in charge, Domkal Police Station, is directed to render necessary assistance to the Prescribed Authority so that the meeting is held peacefully without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever. The police authority shall ensure safe passage of the members of the Panchayat to the venue of the meeting in order to enable them to cast their votes freely and independently. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)